Today is Monday, April 27, 2020

Custom Search

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 182336 December 23, 2009

ELVIRA O. ONG Petitioner,

vs.
JOSE CASIM GENIO, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

NACHURA, J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking the
reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution2 dated January 7, 2008.

Petitioner Elvira O. Ong (petitioner) filed a criminal complaint against respondent Jose Casim Genio (respondent) for
Robbery which was dismissed by the City Prosecutor of Makati City. However, pursuant to the Resolutions dated
September 15, 20063 and October 30, 20064 of the Department of Justice, respondent was charged with the crime
of Robbery in an Information5 which reads:

That in or about and sometime the month of January, 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take, divest and carry away kitchen and canteen equipment as well as her personal things valued at Php
700,000.00, belonging to complainant, ELVIRA O. ONG, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the
aforementioned amount of Php 700,000.00.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

On November 21, 2006, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Case for Lack of Probable Cause Pursuant to Sec.
6(a),6 Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and, in View of Compelling Grounds for the Dismissal of the Case to Hold in
Abeyance the Issuance of the Warrant of Arrest7 (Motion to Dismiss). Petitioner filed an Opposition8 dated
December 11, 2006 to respondent's Motion to Dismiss.

In its Order9 of December 15, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 56, dismissed the case
because the other elements of

the crime of Robbery, specifically the elements of intent to gain, and either

violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things, were not specifically alleged in the Information
filed against respondent.

Despite the dismissal of the case, respondent filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration10 dated January 2, 2007,
reiterating that the Information should be dismissed in its entirety for lack of probable cause. Petitioner filed her
Opposition11 to this motion on February 15, 2007.

In its Order12 dated February 12, 2007, the RTC granted respondent’s Partial Motion for Reconsideration and
dismissed the case for lack of probable cause pursuant to Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure. The RTC held that the evidence on record failed to establish probable cause to charge respondent with
the crime of Robbery.
/
On March 6, 2007, petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration,13 claiming that the RTC erred in relying on
Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, since the said provision relates to the issuance
of a warrant of arrest, and it does not cover the determination of probable cause for the filing of the Information
against respondent, which is executive in nature, a power primarily vested in the Public Prosecutor.

In its Order14 dated June 1, 2007, the RTC denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, holding that the
aforementioned provision authorizes

the RTC to evaluate not only the resolution of the prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation and
eventually filed the Information in court, but also the evidence upon which the resolution was based. In the event
that the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause, the RTC may dismiss the case.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus15 before the CA on August 28, 2007. Respondent
filed a Motion to Dismiss16 the petition, raising the issue of lack of personality of petitioner to appeal the dismissal of
the criminal case, because the authority to do so lies exclusively with the State as represented by the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG). In its Resolution17 dated September 10, 2007, the CA observed that the People of the
Philippines was impleaded as petitioner without showing, however, the OSG's participation. Thus, the CA ordered
petitioner to furnish the OSG with a copy of the Petition, and the latter to comment thereon.

On October 22, 2007, the OSG filed its Comment,18 taking the stand of respondent that only the Solicitor General
can bring or defend actions on behalf of the People of the Philippines filed before the CA or the Supreme Court. The
OSG submitted that, for being fatally defective, the said Petition should be dismissed insofar as the criminal aspect
was concerned, without prejudice to the right of petitioner to pursue the civil aspect of the case.

On January 7, 2008, the CA rendered its Resolution,19 dismissing the case without prejudice to the filing of a
petition on the civil aspect thereof on the basis of the arguments raised by both respondent and the OSG.
Undaunted, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration20 which the CA denied in its Resolution21 dated March 27,
2008.

Hence this Petition raising the following issues:

A.

WHETHER THE PETITIONER AS THE PRIVATE OFFENDED PARTY IN A CRIMINAL CASE HAS NO
PERSONALITY TO ELEVATE THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WITHOUT THE
COMFORMITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL EVEN BEFORE THE ACCUSED IS
ARRAIGNED

B.

WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION ON
THE GROUND OF LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

C.

WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE
INFORMATION ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE WHEN IT HAS PREVIOUSLY
CONCLUDED THAT THE SAME INFORMATION IS DEFECTIVE[.]22

The instant Petition is bereft of merit.

Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987 states that the OSG shall represent
the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation,
proceeding, investigation, or matter requiring the services of lawyers. Likewise, the Solicitor General shall represent
the Government in this Court and the CA in all criminal proceedings, thus:

SEC. 35. Powers and Functions. — The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the
Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation
or matter requiring the services of lawyers. When authorized by the President or head of the office concerned, it
shall also represent government owned or controlled corporations. The Office of the Solicitor General shall
constitute the law office of the Government and, as such, shall discharge duties requiring the services of lawyers. It
shall have the following specific powers and functions:
/
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent
the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all
civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.

This doctrine is laid down in our ruling in Heirs of Federico C. Delgado and Annalisa Pesico v. Luisito Q. Gonzalez
and Antonio T. Buenaflor,23 Cariño v. de Castro,24 Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Umezawa,25 Narciso v. Sta. Romana-
Cruz,26 Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc.,27 and People v. Santiago,28 where we held that only the OSG can bring
or defend actions on behalf of the Republic or represent the People or the State in criminal proceedings pending in
this Court and the CA.

While there may be rare occasions when the offended party may be allowed to pursue the criminal action on his
own behalf,29 as when there is a denial of due process, this exceptional circumstance does not obtain in the instant
case.

Before the CA, the OSG itself opined that the petition therein was fatally defective for having been filed without the
OSG's participation. Before this Court, petitioner failed to advance any justification or excuse why she failed to seek
the assistance of the OSG when she sought relief from the CA, other than the personal belief that the OSG was
burdened with so many cases. Thus, we find no reversible error to disturb the CA's ruling.

Petitioner, however, is not without any recourse. In Rodriguez v. Gadiane,30 we held:

It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant
or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's
role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an
acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor
General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended
party or complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said offended party or complainant may appeal the
civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.

In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the
trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds,
the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the
State and the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case
so he may file such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional
grounds. In so doing, complainant

should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in name of
said complainant.31

On this ground alone, the instant Petition fails. Even on the issue of the RTC's dismissal of the case, the Petition
ought to be denied.

Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure clearly provides:

SEC. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) By the Regional Trial Court. — Within ten (10) days from the filing
of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its
supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused
has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or
when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of
probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice
and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or information.32

Pursuant to the aforementioned provision, the RTC judge, upon the filing of an Information, has the following
options: (1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause; (2) if he or she
finds probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest; and (3) in case of doubt as to the existence of probable cause, order
the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from notice, the issue to be resolved by the court
within thirty days from the filing of the information.331avvphi1

It bears stressing that the judge is required to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to

establish probable cause.34 This, the RTC judge clearly complied with in this case.
/
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated January 7, 2008 is
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO*

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
*
Additional member per Special Order No. 805 dated December 4, 2009.

1 Rollo, pp. 3-20.

2 Particularly docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 100311, penned by Associate Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman,
with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring; id. at 23-24.

3 CA rollo, pp. 18-20.

4 Id. at 21-22.

5 Id. at 23.

6 The parties and the RTC cited this section as Section 5, when in fact all of them were referring to Section 6
of Rule 112 of the Rules.

7 Id. at 24-36.

8 CA rollo, pp. 37-41.

9 Issued by Judge Reynaldo M. Laigo; id. at 43-44.

/
 10 CA rollo, pp. 45-63.

11 Id. at 64-66.

12 Id. at 14-15.

13 Id. at 67-72.

14 Id. at 16-17.

15 Id. at 2-13.

16 Id. at 81-89.

17 Id. at 75-76.

18 Id. at 116-120.

19 Id. at 122-123.

20 Id. at 124-127.

21 Id. at 138-139.

22 Supra note 1, at 6.

23 G.R. No. 184337, August 7, 2009.

24 G.R. No. 176084, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 688.

25 G.R. Nos. 149357 and 149403, March 4, 2005, 452 SCRA 736.

26 G.R. No. 134504, March 17, 2000, 328 SCRA 505.

27 G.R. No. 126210, March 9, 2000, 327 SCRA 588.

28 G.R. No. 80778, June 20, 1989, 174 SCRA 143.

29 Merciales v. Court of Appeals, 429 Phil. 70 (2002).

30 G.R. No. 152903, July 17, 2006, 495 SCRA 368, 374, citing People v. Santiago, id.

31 Emphasis supplied.

32 Emphasis supplied.

33 In Re: Mino v. Navarro, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1645, August 28, 2007, 531 SCRA 271, 279.

34 Concerned Citizen of Maddela v. Dela Torre-Yadao, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1639, November 29, 2002, 393
SCRA 217, 223.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation